Ray's comments to Wade

[_wenglund]

On another thread Ray commented to me things that I thought would be more fitting in their own thread, and so I post them below interspersed with my response:

DCP is defending a book as "historical" which I consider to be non-historical. It might only be my considered opinion, but it's a strongly considered opinion based on using my rational brain. Have you considered the untold harm this can do to a person who believes all this, then later discovers that it isn't historical?

I have heard told, on not a few occasions, the adverse reactions of some members when their faith is lost in the historicity of the Book of Mormon and supplanted with the opinion that it is not historical.

I am sorry that they have had such an adverse reaction to a book I still believe firmly is historical.

But, unlike some, I am not looking to point fingers of blame. Instead, I prefer to do what I can in working towards a mutually amenabe resolution, and assist these good folks in overcoming and/or moving beyond the aversive reaction. I believe this can be done by refocusing our thoughts on what is most important and what will serve us best.

I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about teaching people that there were "literal Nephites" and persuading them to base their whole lives around this belief when the evidence for this is next to nil (unless you look at esoteric internal evidences, which still don't prove it's historical).

I am intimately aware that the historicity of the Book of Mormon is a matter of faith and not a matter of fact. And, I am completely comfortable with that, while also respecting that others may not be. To each their own.

The Community of Christ, in my opinion, takes a much safer approach, and their scholars have encouraged this approach. They haven't set up a branch of FARMS to defend a non-historical book. Do you see exmos from the CoC blasting them all over the Net? Why is that? Do you hear endless stories of broken lives from ex-CoC members? Why is that?

Okay...so you, as a former member, prefer the CoC approach. I wish you and them well with that.

I, on the other hand, prefer the LDS approach (including the independent offerings of FARMS and other apologetic organization).

We, then, have different preferences. So...?

And speaking of "promot[ing] integration through behaving segregationist", don't you promote "love" through behaving segregationist to gay people?

No. Not in the least.

If you retain your "gay church policy" and retain your own restrictions that's your choice. But to influence the wider community to accept your views as coming from the Almighty God himself, is wrong.

How is it any more or less wrong for me to advocate for my religious beliefs in the public marketplace of ideas than for anyone else (including gays) to advocate for their beliefs? Are you selectively proposing that religious beliefs be muzzled? And, if so, on what basis?

This certainly isn't the America envisioned by the likes of Thomas Jefferson. While Jefferson encourages private religious beliefs, here's what he said about religious influence:

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

How does this nearly 200-year-old private sentiment apply to Prop 8? Are you suggesting that Jefferson envisioned so-called gay marriage, and would have object to the religious citizens of the State of California constitutionally defining marriage as between a man and woman? And, if so, on what basis?

No truer words were ever spoken if this is applied to what happened with Prop 8. And you supported that! But you'll never see it, Wade, and for you "conversation" is all about you, your beliefs, and your "rights", damned be the rights of others.

I can appreciate that you see it that way.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Ray A]

I have heard told, on not a few occasions, the adverse reactions of some members when their faith is lost in the historicity of the Book of Mormon and supplanted with the opinion that it is not historical.

I am sorry that they have had such an adverse reaction to a book I still believe firmly is historical.

But, unlike some, I am not looking to point fingers of blame. Instead, I prefer to do what I can in working towards a mutually amenabe resolution, and assist these good folks in overcoming and/or moving beyond the aversive reaction. I believe this can be done by refocusing our thoughts on what is most important and what will serve us best.

The first clarification I have to make is that I personally feel no aversive reaction to the fact that the Book of Mormon isn't historical. I've lived with that idea since about 1994, though my doubts about historicity go back much further. I'm merely pointing out the continuing reactions and anger coming from those who once believed it. You say you want to resolve this, Wade? I've mentioned more times than I can count about the excommunication of David Wright, for "publicly" casting doubts on the Book of Mormon as historical. He was genuine in this conclusion, and as a biblical scholar felt that he should publish his findings, only to be hauled before a Church court. So here is my solution - get rid of the Flat Earth mentality and the "burning at the stake" (excommunication today) mentality that occurred to "heretics" in the Middle Ages. In the end, all of them have been vindicated with the passage of time, but too late, they're all gone and no amends can be made except empty apologies for short-sightedness on the part of the Churches. Writings such as those coming from David Wright should be publicised so that members and potential members can make more informed life decisions - not supressed!

I am intimately aware that the historicity of the Book of Mormon is a matter of faith and not a matter of fact. And, I am completely comfortable with that, while also respecting that others may not be. To each their own.

You know it's matter of faith, yet you teach your children otherwise - you teach them that it's fact, not faith. If you doubt me, check out any children's publication on the Book of Mormon published by the Church. Are they given an option? Do parents say to their children, "we believe it is history, but we don't know for sure, it's a matter of faith, something you have to decide for yourself"? So when junior gets to be senior, and concludes that the Book of Mormon isn't historical, RFM gets another angry ex-Mormon adding to its 150,000-plus hits per day. You will remember that for a long time I disagreed with this anger, and even spoke out about it, but in reality I was kicking the dog for barking and waking me up, when he was just trying to warn me of an intruder. You have to look at causes, not just symptoms, and it's a process that has to be revised and evaluated from time to time. You might be "comfortable", but maybe you need to try to understand why others aren't. But I realise we're stuck in the mud here, and have possibly two irreconcilable viewpoints because of the very nature of Utah Mormonism. It's either true, or the worst fraud in world religious history. Even DCP has said that if it isn't true, it would be "unutterably sad". Does it strike you, or DCP, that for thousands it has been "unutterably sad"?? Do you expect BIC Mormons to "just move on" as if it was just like their team lost the Superbowl? Yes I needed to, and have grown more sympathetic to this predicament. How about you?

Okay...so you, as a former member, prefer the CoC approach. I wish you and them well with that.

I, on the other hand, prefer the LDS approach (including the independent offerings of FARMS and other apologetic organization).

We, then, have different preferences. So...?

Indeed, so? So I'm voicing my opinion, and in my opinion I believe it's wrong to be so dogmatic when there's so much contrary evidence for what you believe in regard to historicity. I believe it's almost at disaster proportions, and the sad thing is that so many informed apologists know all of these problems, but continue to conveniently manufacture excuses and dismiss criticisms like those of Professor David Wright. "Oh, we'll get about replying to him someday, but in the meantime let the bishops keep excommunicating the troublemakers and the faith-destroyers". Way to go.

How is it any more or less wrong for me to advocate for my religious beliefs in the public marketplace of ideas than for anyone else (including gays) to advocate for their beliefs? Are you selectively proposing that religious beliefs be muzzled? And, if so, on what basis?

Advocating your religious beliefs is one thing, collectivising an army of believers to give $millions outside of California to influence the outcome of a vote is something else. Here is what I posted on the FAIR Blog:

True case: A friend and member of the Church sends out numerous emails asking everyone to support Prop 8, to “get behind the campaign”. This friend is not in California. I reply with two emails explaining that even if I could vote, I would not support it, and I give detailed reasons why. Another ( who is a member of the Church) who didn’t support it gave even more detailed replies explaining why, and why much of the campaign is founding on erroneous information. When pressed, my friend admitted that he/she really “didn’t know much about this”, but was a campaign organiser in his/her state, “because our leaders asked us to support it”, and it is necessary to “follow our leaders”.
Control? This person exercised his/her “agency”, but agency should be based on proper knowledge, not just the principle of “follow the leader”. In this particular case it was the latter. How many, I wonder acted like this member? I think Hugh Nibley had a classic term for this: Zeal without knowledge. And speaking of the eccentric and sometimes unpredictable Nibley, who was in unpopular opposition to the Vietnam war when the Church supported it, I wonder what he would have thought of this? Mormon Utah was one of the states which broke the crucial deadlock in the overturning of Prohibition, against the wishes of the leadership.

What has modern Mormonism become? In this case, a political machine with enormous power.

So far, no one has replied to this post.

How does this nearly 200-year-old private sentiment apply to Prop 8? Are you suggesting that Jefferson envisioned so-called gay marriage, and would have object to the religious citizens of the State of California constitutionally defining marriage as between a man and woman? And, if so, on what basis?

You and I don't know what Jefferson would have believed or voted. Obama was against Prop 8. And no, I doubt Jefferson would have intervened, as Obama didn't, but that's all beside the point, and the point I made was what Jefferson wrote about the priest being hostile to liberty and abetting with despots for their own protection, and in that regard think of the "coalition of churches" that largely influenced the outcome of Prop 8, including the Catholic Church which has an appalling history of suppression, control, and burning of heretics.

[_Runtu]

I've come to believe that Wade's heart is in the right place, but I think you've hit on a major problem with this statement:

You have to look at causes, not just symptoms, and it's a process that has to be revised and evaluated from time to time.

I believe Wade has considered the pain and hurt and anger of exmos to be a symptom, but that the symptom is caused by the exmos' attitudes and misunderstandings, not by anything the church and its leaders have said and done. He's said many times that negative reactions to our experience in the church are a result of faulty cognitive processes and psychological defects.

An analogy is Bednar's odd notion that someone who is offended is responsible for the offense. In both of these approaches, as you say, the causes are ignored, and only the symptoms are dealt with.

Where you and I disagree with Wade is the causes of the pain and the hurt. We see the roots lying in a manipulative disregard for truth practiced by the church, whereas he sees the church as being misunderstood by us exmos.

I don't think there's intentional malice on Wade's part, and when I met him he was a warm and personable fellow. We just disagree as to the causes.

[_Trevor]

I believe Wade has considered the pain and hurt and anger of exmos to be a symptom, but that the symptom is caused by the exmos' attitudes and misunderstandings, not by anything the church and its leaders have said and done. He's said many times that negative reactions to our experience in the church are a result of faulty cognitive processes and psychological defects.

Well said, Runtu.

Excellent post at FAIR, Ray.

[_Roger Morrison]

My comment to Wade: An excellent objective presentation of your position re accecpting LDSism historically--as many can't--or accepting it by faith--as many do. Well stated Wade. You've come a long way, Buddy! Congrats!! Nice to see you again. Welcome back???

Personally, I don't think there's very much of real importance that divides the constituents of the two Schools. I imagine folks from both groups helping in times of physical disasters without discriminarion. Unfortunately when ideology is in question, too often it's: "My idiocy, right or wrong!"

Warm regards, Roger

[_wenglund]

Hi Ray and John,

In the interest of time, and not wishing to get sucked into the counterproductive morass of back-and-forth banter, I would like to pick up on the point that you both crystalized so nicely, to wit:

"you have to look at causes, not just symptoms, and it's a process that has to be revised and evaluated from time to time."

While I don't disagree with this point, I believe that it fails to include the most critical component--that being: the end objective.

I am not referring here to the resolution as the end objective (though I do consider it a valued step in the right direction). Rather, I am referring to satisfying the basic human need to progress in becoming the very best people possible and to grow towards a fulness of joy and love one with another.

To me, there needs to be this end point of orientation against which various causes, symptoms, resolutions, processes and so forth may be properly assessed.

For example, I like to use the analogy of a flat tire on a car. It is conceivable that two reasonable people may react differently to the tire going flat. One may become terribly despondent while the other may shrug it off, one may become quite accusatory while the other may throw his hands in the air.

And, two reasonable people may reasonably disagree as to what may have caused the tire to go flat, and reasonably disagree whether it is necessary to determine the cause before fixing the flat or avoid getting a flat in the future. They may even reasonably disagree as to the best way to fix the flat.

In other words, there are a multitude of issue that two reasonable people could debate near endlessly.

What I see the end objective doing in such cases, is put it all in perspective, and act as a force for productive resolution. Rather than getting bogged down in endless debate, the end objective may provide impetus for both reasonable people to focus more on getting the tire fixed and get the car moving again so as to progress towards the end destination.

I am speaking here conceptually, but when I get a moment I will attempt to illustrate the concept by applying it to a real-life situation (perhaps something having to do with the alleged "manipulative disregard for truth practiced by the church" that John mentioned).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

I am speaking here conceptually, but when I get a moment I will attempt to illustrate the concept by applying it to a real-life situation (perhaps something having to do with the alleged "manipulative disregard for truth practiced by the church" that John mentioned).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I certainly agree that the outcome should be the primary focus, but I don't believe you can properly deal with a problem and reach a positive outcome without addressing causes. To use your analogy, if I know what caused the flat tire, my course of action will differ depending on the cause. If, for example, the tire is flat because of a blowout, I will need a new tire. If it's merely a broken valve stem, I need only replace the stem. If there is a nail in the tire, I need to pull it out and patch it.

What would be counterproductive would be to suggest that simply refilling the tire with air will fix it. And what would be even worse would be for me to suggest that it's irrational to feel anything, such as frustration or worry, over the tire. Further, if someone shot out the tire with a rifle and is still holding the loaded gun, it would be foolish to suggest that we forget about the cause and simply fix the tire, all the while under fire.

What I'm saying in my long-winded way is that outcomes are important, but so is acknowledging and dealing with the causes. My experience with you is that you have never acknowledged that the church has had any effect on the negative reactions many of us experience. As long as you understand that you are coming from that position and I am willing to look at both my own role and the church's in my experiences, we will most likely never come to an agreement about outcomes.

[_Ray A]

I'll wait for your further comments, Wade, but in the meantime I'll add a bit more. It would be nice to have the results of the recent Book of Mormon survey, if they are even out as yet, I'm not sure. I just read on another website about a young man who left the Church only months ago, after being a very staunch BIC TBM. He seems to have experienced few ill-effects, and his family and leaders accepted his decision without much quarrel. So perhaps your "tire" analogy applies here, every situation is different, and solutions to those situations will vary. Many people leave the Church without any problems, but for others it's clearly a difficult and painful process, and I think that leads to much of the anger we see. This more often than not occurs when the exiting member has to deal with family affected by their loss of faith/belief. For some families, they have expressed the loss almost as if it was a "death in the family". I think this is where the most problems occur, but this isn't to say that for some, even without the family "exit pains", their loss of faith is still poignantly in memory.

I think Runtu is right that your heart seems to be in the right place. But I still don't think you've addressed the causes. Maybe you'll do that later. It's all good and well to ask that everyone "get along" and work on solutions, but the tire went flat for a reason. I agree with you on this point:

In other words, there are a multitude of issue that two reasonable people could debate near endlessly.

But that shouldn't stop us looking at some of the issues. I never felt good about drumming the Book of Mormon, or the Bible, into my children. It even pained me to think that I might be controlling their innocent minds. If they did something wrong I'd correct them, and I think we gave them a good moral foundation for life, and I'm almost arrogantly proud of them today (LoaP will agree). True, none of them are believers, but they still respect Mormonism, probably because they didn't have to go through what so many others have, who had far more pressure on them. I gave them a choice, not only a religious choice, by the way, and I didn't beat them over the head if they choose to go down a different path than the one I envisioned for them. I messaged my younger daughter last week and she didn't reply until last night. Tried calling but her phone was on voicemail, so I was starting to get concerned. She finally messaged me last night saying, "Dad, please stop being such a stress head". And maybe that's one of the problematic areas, why so many "concerned Mormon families" become "stress heads" about someone who needs help and understanding, not judgment, and not help and understanding to get back into the fold, but to go where they want to go in life, without feeling like they will spend eternity in outer darkness, or with the constant disapproval of their still believing family.

[_wenglund]

Gentelmen,

Addressing the supposed causes may work when agreement can be reached as to the causes. But, as John has already noted, members and former members tend not to agree about the causes of lose of faith. Believers can't rationally be expected to agree with unbelievers claiming that the Church lied about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and unbelievers can't reasonably be expected to agree with believers claiming that loss of faith was due to sin, and so on and so forth.

This is a classic stalemate, which by definition doesn't work.

I believe that what I am proposing is a viable way of breaking or getting around the stalemate and moving all of us forward. So, if either of you would like to offer a specific example of a cause of loss of faith in your own lives (or better yet, Ray, if you could isolate for us one main cause for your recent heightened animosity towards the Church), that may prove useful in illustrating my point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Ray A]

I believe that what I am proposing is a viable way of breaking or getting around the stalemate and moving all of us forward. So, if either of you would like to offer a specific example of a cause of loss of faith in your own lives, that may prove useful in illustrating my point.

As I mentioned before, I began seriously doubting historicity in 1994. After reading David Wright's studies, then Brent Metcalfe's book in 1995, and comparing it to the FROB review on that book, I believed the Metcalfe book was more convincing. That's not so say I didn't still keep my options open, but I'm 99% convinced the Book of Mormon isn't history. Make that 99.99%.

That wasn't the big issue with me, though, and the Book of Mormon is only one factor in disbelief.

And that's not to say I didn't still find some "spiritual value" in it, same with the Bible. I can still selectively read both books and gain inspirational insights. But to take either of them literally, as history, is simple not possible for me. And there was Bill Hamblin himself, arguing on MAD only recently, trying to explain why the Book of Mormon contained so much "Christian content" by referring to Moroni's "editing" of the plates. It was completely lost on him that the small plates of Nephi were never edited. So in 600 BC, Jews practised full blown Christianity. And the Law of Moses.

Find me a scholar, any scholar, who will believe this. No, Barker doesn't qualify.